Friday, April 27, 2012

Hundreds of Thousands Urge USDA to Stop 'Agent Orange Corn'

- Common Dreams staff
Published on Friday, April 27, 2012 by Common Dreams

Hundreds of thousands of individuals, organizations and farmers
are pushing the USDA to stop the approval of Dow AgroSciences'
2,4-D-resistant corn, dubbed 'Agent Orange corn' by its opponents, who
say the product poses a threat to public health and the environment.
The
product, officially called 'Enlist,' is a genetically modified crop
able to withstand being sprayed with 2,4-D, one of the components of
Agent Orange, so that farmers can spray the pesticide to kill weeds
without killing the crop.
As the New York Times explains,
the 2,4-D-resistant corn was seen as necessary because farmers had
overused glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp, and
the weeds became immune to the pesticide.(photo: Iowa Farm Bureau)
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch,
underscores the health risks associated with 2,4-D: "Many studies show
that 2,4 D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer,
Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth
defects,” she said. “USDA must take these significant risks seriously
and reject approval of this crop.”
Others, such as Margot McMillen, an organic farmer in Missouri, noted
that by approving Enlist, the USDA would be filling the pockets of
chemical makers: “USDA must stand up for those growing America’s food
and put their interests, and the public’s, ahead of chemical companies’
profits.”
The product is denounced not only by food safety groups and organic
farmers; it is also denounced by conventional farmers whose voice is
heard in the Save Our Crops Coalition (SOCC):
“It is the projection of a 1070% increase in the use of 2,4-D that
threatens the survival of the specialty crop production in the Midwest.
2,4-D is a threat to growers and processors like us,” said Steve Smith
of Red Gold, an Indiana-based food processor, part of SOCC
The short video answering the question, "Why is this technology
needed?" on Enlist's own site from Dow AgroSciences inadvertently gives
an answer to the question by showing several large fields of nothing but
monocultures.
The USDA's public comment period on the corn ends today. Several groups including Pesticide Action Network have petitions to ask the USDA to reject the proposal.

Dow wants to roll out Enlist corn, soybeans and cotton along with an
Enlist herbicide that are able to survive dousings of a combination of
the herbicide 2,4-D with glyphosate. The new chemical aims to wipe out
weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate alone.
Dow officials voiced frustration with the activism of opponents. The
company said it is trying to educate farmers and others about the
benefits of its products, which it said are safe and well tested. [...]
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) was one of the ingredients in
Agent Orange, the Vietnam War defoliant that was blamed for numerous
health problems suffered during and after the war.
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center and former
executive director of the agriculture board of the National Academy of
Sciences, said widespread planting of 2,4-D corn could trigger as much
as a 30-fold increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade.
Overall 2,4-D use in American agriculture would rise from 27 million
pound to more than 100 million pounds and the release of 2,4-D soybeans
and cotton following corn would boost usage still more, according to
Benbrook.
Several medical and public health professionals have sent a letter to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture warning of health threats that could
accompany such an increase in 2,4-D use.

WASHINGTON - April 26 - Over 140 groups and more than 365,000
citizens from across the country are urging the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to reject a Dow Chemical application seeking approval
of a controversial genetically engineered (GE) corn that is resistant
to the hazardous herbicide 2,4-D. In addition to the public comments,
143 farm, environmental, health, fisheries groups and companies will
submit a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack expressing their
overwhelming opposition to this crop. The comments and letter will be
submitted when USDA’s public comment period ends this Friday, April 27.
“American agriculture stands at a crossroads. One path leads to more
intensive use of old and toxic pesticides, litigious disputes in farm
country over drift-related crop injury, less crop diversity,
increasingly intractable weeds, and sharply rising farmer production
costs,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food
Safety. “This is the path American agriculture will take with approval
of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn, soybeans and the host of other new
herbicide-resistant crops in the pipeline. Another path is possible, but
embarking upon it will take enlightened leadership from USDA.”
According to agricultural scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook, widespread
planting of 2,4-D resistant corn could trigger as much as a 30-fold
increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade, given 2,4-D’s
limited use on corn at present. Overall 2,4-D use in American
agriculture would rise from 27 million lbs. today to over 100 million
lbs. 2,4-D soybeans and cotton would boost usage still more. Yet USDA
has provided no analysis of the serious harm to human health, the
environment or neighboring farms that would result.
“It’s clear that this new generation of GE herbicide-resistant seeds
is the growth engine of the pesticide industry’s sales and marketing
strategy,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide
Action Network. “These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly
designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump
up chemical sales.”
In addition, 35 medical and public health professionals have signed a
letter to USDA warning of the severe health harms that would likely
accompany the massive increase in 2,4-D use, expected to accompany
approval of the GE seed. “Many studies show that 2,4 D exposure is
associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve
damage, hormone disruption and birth defects,” said Wenonah Hauter,
Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “USDA must take these
significant risks seriously and reject approval of this crop.”
American farmers are also rightly concerned that the introduction of
2,4-D resistant corn will threaten their crops. 2,4-D drift is
responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other herbicide.
Last week, a coalition representing more than 2,000 farmers and groups
filed petitions with the USDA and the EPA, asking USDA to conduct a
thorough environmental review before making a decision on approving
2,4-D resistant corn and EPA to convene an advisory panel to examine
impacts from increased application of the herbicides.
“Farmers are on the front lines of this potential chemical disaster,”
said Iowa conventional corn and soybean farmer George Naylor.
“Conventional farmers stand to lose crops while organic farmers will
lose both crops and certification, resulting in an economic unraveling
of already-stressed rural communities. I’m also very concerned about the
further pollution of the air and water in my community.”
“USDA must stand up for those growing America’s food and put their
interests, and the public’s, ahead of chemical companies’ profits,”
added Margot McMillen, an organic farmer in Missouri. Hers is the
message of farmers who are speaking on this issue today at a national
telepress conference organized by the National Family Farm Coalition.
Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn is a clear indication that
first-generation GE, herbicide-resistant crops—specifically Monsanto’s
Roundup Ready (RR) varieties—are rapidly failing. RR crops, which
comprise 84 percent of world biotech plantings, have triggered massive
use of glyphosate (Roundup’s active ingredient) and an epidemic of
glyphosate-resistant “superweeds.”
Though Dow claims 2,4-D crops are the solution to weed resistance a
recent peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious journal
Bioscience concludes that these new GE crops will pour oil on the fire.
The study, entitled “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed
Management,” suggests new GE crops will trigger an outbreak of still
more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D.
2,4-D drift and runoff also pose serious risk for environmental harm.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service have found that 2,4-D is likely having adverse impacts
on several endangered species, including the California red-legged
frog, the Alameda whipsnake, and Pacific salmon, via impacts on their
habitats and prey.
“EPA recently denied our petition to ban or control 2,4-D, putting
their head in the sand instead of protecting people and plants,” said
Mae Wu, a health attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). “If USDA now grants Dow’s application, farmers, gardeners,
wildlife, and kids will all face even greater exposure to this toxic
herbicide.”
If approved, the Center for Food Safety has vowed to challenge USDA’s
decision in court, as this novel GE crop provides no public benefit and
will only cause serious harm to human health, the environment, and
threaten American farms.
The groups submitting public comments to USDA include the Center for
Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Food
Democracy Now, the National Family Farm Coalition, Organic Farming
Research Foundation, the Organic Consumers Association, SumOfUs.org, and
the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The beef industry and the USDA were quick to dismiss worries of
contamination to the food supply. John Clifford, the USDA's chief
veterinary officer, said, "It was never presented for slaughter for
human consumption, so at no time presented a risk to the food supply or
human health."

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association said in a statement: "U.S.
regulatory controls are effective, and that U.S fresh beef and beef
products from cattle of all ages are safe and can be safely traded due
to our interlocking safeguards."

But Elisa Odabashian, West Coast director of Consumers Union, noted
that the monitoring system leaves public health gaps because it is just
too small.

"Only 40,000 cows a year -- of millions slaughtered -- are tested,"
she said. "We don't know if this is an isolated, unusual event -- or if
they are not finding it because they are not looking. There very well
may be more beef that has this disease. Our monitoring program is tiny."

Agriculture officials said the dead cow had an atypical form of BSE
caused by a random mutation, not the form caused by eating infecting
cattle feed.

The U.S. Agriculture Department confirmed on Tuesday a California
dairy cow had mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), the fourth such U.S. case since it was first found here in 2003,
but said no parts of the animal entered the nation's food supply.
John Clifford, the USDA's chief veterinary officer, said there was
"no cause for alarm" from the animal, which was found at a rendering
plant that processes diseased or sick animals into non-edible products
for use in things like soap or glue.
Mad cow, which is believed to cause the deadly brain disease
Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans who eat infected parts from animals with the
disease, was first found in the United States in late 2003, causing a
nearly $3 billion slump in the nation's beef exports the following year.

But many questions remained unanswered late Tuesday: Where did the
cow come from? How did it get the disease? Were there other animals in
the herd that might be infected? And was the meat from them sold for
public consumption?
The cow tested positive at a transfer facility in Hanford, 15 miles
west of Visalia in Kings County, operated by Baker Commodities, the
company confirmed Tuesday. Baker has 21 plants across the United States
that convert animal byproducts into pet food, poultry feed and tallow,
used in soaps, paints and cosmetics. The company advertises that it
provides "dead stock removal" for dairy cows and cattle.
Dead livestock are brought to the transfer facility to have their
hides removed before going to a rendering plant at Kerman 48 miles to
the north. The animal was tested as part of a random sampling program.
[...]
Although many dairy cows in the U.S. eventually are slaughtered for
pet food and other products, some are turned into ground beef and other
types of meat for human consumption, including hamburgers at fast-food
restaurants and on school lunch menus. [...]
But critics said the incident shows shortcomings in the USDA's safety
regulations. "Since the Bush administration, the number of cows tested
each year has diminished," said Elisa Odabashian, West Coast director of
Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports.
"Only 40,000 cows a year -- of millions slaughtered -- are tested,"
she said. "We don't know if this is an isolated, unusual event -- or if
they are not finding it because they are not looking. There very well
may be more beef that has this disease. Our monitoring program is tiny."

Consumers Union is seriously concerned by the announcement today of a
new case of mad cow disease in a cow from Central California. This
raises three important questions about the safety of US beef.
First, the USDA testing program for mad cow disease is way too small.
USDA only tests some 40,000 cows a year of the millions slaughtered
annually. So we really don't know if this is an isolated unusual event
or whether there are more cases in US beef. Our monitoring program is
just too small.
Second, detection of BSE is needlessly hindered by the fact that USDA
prohibits private companies from testing their own beef. Private
testing could augment USDA testing and provide an extra measure of
monitoring and assurance of safety to consumers. USDA only tests cattle
that are sent to the renderer and doesn’t test at slaughterhouses. We
find it hard to understand why USDA prohibits private companies from
testing.
Third, the ruminant to ruminant feed ban in the US to prevent spread
of mad cow disease is inadequate. Cows can't be fed to other cows, which
is a good thing. But remains of cows can be fed to pigs and chickens,
and pig and chicken remains can be fed back to cows. We believe this
could allow for the spread of mad cow disease.

Rally
and march May 2 to celebrate turning in nearly a million signatures to
put the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative on the ballot!
Kids, babies, baby carriages encouraged – we’ll be wheeling in petitions
in carriages to represent the importance of this issue to children and
future generations.

Please
arrive at 10 a.m. Wednesday May 2 with signs, baby strollers, and
balloons encouraged too. We will rally and march to deliver petitions at
11 am.

San Francisco
– Meet
in front of San Francisco City Hall on Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet Place,
near Civic Center BART. Speakers include Pamm Larry from Label GMOs,
Right to Know campaigners, and supporters of the GMO
labeling initiative.

Please
copy and paste and send this invitation to your list, post it on
facebook, tweet about it, blog about it, send it to 10 press contacts or
celebrities. Let's celebrate our success publicly to attract the
mainstream press.

NOTE
about visuals: We want to make a strong show of celebration -- signs,
balloons, carriages and/or strollers or red wagons to wheel in petitions
will be ideal. In San Francisco and Sacramento there will be 2-4
petition boxes to wheel in (they are 35 pounds each), but LA has up to
20 boxes and needs lots of strollers! Get out those jogging strollers!

Monday, April 23, 2012

'Whole Food, Not Whole Foods': Renegade Farmers Reclaim Land on Earth Day

To prevent the sale for private development, citizens plant community garden

- Common Dreams staff

Bay area residents on Sunday, in order to prevent development
of a chain grocery store, reclaimed 10 acres of land owned by the
University of California-Berkeley and planted a community garden.
An Occupy the Farm protester rototills a patch of land owned by UC
Berkeley at Buchanan and Jackson streets in Albany. (Kevin Johnson / The
Chronicle)
The protesters-cum-gardeners,
several dozen of them in all, broke the lock on a chain-linked fence
about mid-day and got to work digging beds, roto-tilling soil, and
planting carrots, broccoli, and other vegetables. The plan
is to build a sustainable community garden and stave off any attempt by
UC Berkeley to sell the land for private development. Gopal Dayaneni,
one of the 20 or so core organizers of the action, told the San Jose Mercury News
that the group was committed to growing both the farm and its community
of farmers. Volunteers had about 10,000 starts -- small bulbs or
seedlings -- and dug dozens of rows. Some people brought chickens, and
the group even brought in a large tank for watering.
"This is the last, best agricultural soil in the East Bay, and we
want it to be preserved for community farming and sustainable urban
agriculture, not chopped up and sold off in pieces by the university,"
said Dayaneni, a 43-year-old Oakland resident and father of two who said
he's long been active in environmental and ecological issues in the
East Bay.
Police were on the scene throughout the day, but no arrests were
reported. The 'renegade farmers' were pitching tents at the end of the
day, but said they had no plans to permanently occupy the land. "Our
goal is not to live here, our goal is to create a working urban
agro-ecological farm," Anya Kamenskaya, a spokesperson for the group,
told the San Francisco Chronicle.

A tussle between preservationists and UC Berkeley over a decadelong
development project in Albany erupted into a pitchfork protest Sunday,
when activists planted a renegade farm on a plot of land known as the
Gill Tract in an effort to keep it agriculturally pristine.
Timing their action to Earth Day, about 200 members of Occupy the
Farm to Take Back the Gill Tract broke a lock on a gate, rototilled the
soil and planted carrot, broccoli and corn seedlings on part of the
10-acre site at Marin and San Pablo avenues. The Albany tract is owned
by UC Berkeley, which has plans for further housing and commercial
development nearby.
Police were on hand not long after the activists broke in at
mid-afternoon and informed them they were breaking the law, but no
arrests were made.
By early evening, there was no police presence visible at the site,
located near a busy street corner just east of Highway 80. Most of the
activists had departed, but 50 or 60 planned to camp out at the site and
had begun erecting tents.
Anya Kamenskaya, a spokeswoman for the group, said police officers
told them they might return, but it was unclear if they would try to
evict them."We think it is the height of irony that a
upscale national chain grocery store would be building on arable land
where food can be grown here for the community."--Anya Kamensksaya,
renegade farmer
"Our goal is not to live here, our goal is to create a working urban agro-ecological farm," Kamenskaya said.
There was no immediate comment on the situation from UC Berkeley representatives. [...]
"I wouldn't call this property damage, I'd call it property
enrichment," said Lesley Haddock, a UC Berkeley sophomore who was part
of the farm-in. "Basically what we did was pull out weeds. We're not
trying to protect it as is, but to turn it into a community hub for
agriculture."
She said Occupy the Farm was not linked to the Occupy Oakland
protests, but "was philosophically inspired by it." The movement, she
added, was done in solidarity with the Brazilian Movimiento Sin Tierra
(Landless Workers Movement) and La Via Campesina (the International Day
of Peasant's Struggles).
The activists erected signs, including one that read "Whole food, not
Whole Foods," a reference to the grocery chain that is a possible
tenant at the site.

"We think it is the height of irony that a upscale national chain
grocery store would be building on arable land where food can be grown
here for the community," Kamenskaya said.
* * *

The group said it hopes the university will commit to using the
remaining land for public farming, rather than selling it off. The new
farm, Dayaneni said, is a work in progress, but the group hopes to build
on Sunday's efforts and make it a source of "healthy, local, yummy,
tasty food for people who need it."
A live online video stream from Ustream user BellaEiko on Sunday
showed dozens of protesters milling about the tract around 4 p.m., some
of them gardening. A few minutes earlier, the stream showed University
of California police officers telling protesters that they were
trespassing and subject to arrest.
Neither Cal spokesman Dan Mogulof nor university police immediately
returned phone calls Sunday afternoon asking for comment. Albany police
referred all questions to university police.
Dayaneni said the group has been cordial with police and is planning to camp out to protect its hard work.
"Occupy the Farm is committed to farming; that's the purpose of it,"
he said. "If (police) want to tell us to leave, we'll keep farming, and
they'll have to make a decision what to do."Source:
Published on Monday, April 23, 2012 by Common Dreamshttp://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/23-0

April 20, 2012: Today, the House Agriculture Committee voted 9-1 in favor of H.722,
the bill that would require labeling of genetically engineered foods
sold in Vermont. The vote came after the Committee had heard nearly a
month’s worth of testimony, including at the April 12th public hearing
when hundreds of the bill’s supporters packed the house chamber and over
100 testified unanimously in favor of the bill.

We hope that you take the time to thank the members of the House
Agriculture Committee for their hard work on the bill. (you can see a list and find their contact information here.)

Since the public hearing, the Committee has been working on the bill to
make sure that it addressed the many reasons why people have a right to
know what they are eating. Unfortunately, before passing the bill, the
committee added a “trigger clause” that would not allow the bill to go
into effect until 365 days after a similar bill is passed by California,
as well as two states in the Northeast.

The bill will now move to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will
be examined before it can reach the floor. It is not likely that the
Judiciary Committee will have time to consider the bill, because the
legislative session is slated to end in less than two weeks.

We want to thank everyone who has worked so hard in support of the bill,
especially all of you who took the time to come to the public hearing
in Montpelier. The VT Right to Know GMOs coalition will be meeting on
Monday to discuss the next steps for this campaign, and we will let you
know what you can do to help keep this important issue alive.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

The next skirmish over genetically modified
foods is getting underway, pitting a coalition of environmental,
consumer and food-safety groups against the federal government. Early this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved
unrestricted planting of a type of GM alfalfa engineered by Monsanto. To
the average consumer, that might not sound like such a big deal-after
all, we’re not rabbits.

But rabbits aren’t the only animals that like to munch on the sweet
grass. Alfalfa is the primary food source for cows, too. No only that,
but alfalfa has a wily propensity to cross-pollinate across miles; over
time, opponents say, there’s no way to ensure that the GM variety
doesn’t intermix with the non-GM variety. What that means is that the government’s decision to approve the use of
GM alfalfa could spell the end of organic dairy products, ranging from
milk to yogurt. By law, no GM ingredients can be used in the production
of anything labeled “organic.”

Opponents also charge that widespread use of GM alfalfa will result
in the release of an estimated 23 million more pounds of toxic chemicals
into the environment. That’s because Monsanto developed its GM alfalfa
to withstand application of its Roundup
herbicide. Currently, more than 90 percent of the alfalfa grown in the
U.S. does not use any herbicide, according to the UDSA. Critics say that
planting GM alfalfa will not only lead to more herbicide use, it will
encourage an already growing problem of herbicide-resistant weeds,
so-called “superweeds.”

A broad coalition of groups, ranging from environmental organizations
such as Earthjustice to public advocacy groups such as the Center for
Food Safety, have filed suit in federal court to block USDA’s decision.

“Approving the unrestricted planting of GE alfalfa is a blatant case
of the USDA serving one form of agriculture at the expense of all
others,” says one of the plaintiffs in the case, in a press release
issued by the coalition. “If this decision is not remedied, the result
will be lost livelihoods for organic dairy farmers, loss of choice for
farmers and consumers, and no transparency about [GM] contamination of
our foods.”

2012 Senate Farm Bill Does More Harm Than Good

WASHINGTON - April 20 - Statement of Craig Cox, Senior Vice
President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Environmental Working
Group, on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s 2012 farm bill.
“The 2012 farm bill should do more to support family farmers, protect
the environment, promote healthy diets and support working families.
Unfortunately, the bill produced today by the Senate Agriculture
Committee will do more harm than good. It needlessly sacrifices
conservation and feeding assistance programs to finance unlimited
insurance subsidies and a new entitlement program for highly profitable
farm businesses. Rather than simply ending the widely discredited direct
payment program, the Senate Agriculture Committee has created an
expensive new entitlement program that guarantees most of the income of
farm businesses already enjoying record profits. Replacing direct
payments with a revenue guarantee program is a cynical game of
bait-and-switch that should be rejected by Congress.
“The proposed legislation doubles down on unlimited subsidies to buy
and deliver farm insurance – at a cost of $90 billion over the next ten
years. Modest reforms to these heavily subsidized insurance programs,
such as means-testing and capping premium subsidies, would save enough
money to spare conservation and anti-hunger programs from the proposed
cuts. Crop insurance has not only become an expensive new subsidy for
large farm businesses, it has also become an entitlement program for
insurance agents and insurers, including companies based in tax havens
such as Bermuda and Switzerland.
“EWG is disappointed that the Committee failed to address the impact
of fence-row to fence-row agricultural production, which is putting
unprecedented pressure on our land, water and wildlife. Although the
Committee extended conservation compliance to the revenue guarantee
program, we are disappointed that the Committee failed to require that
farmers protect wetlands, grasslands and soil health in exchange for
insurance subsidies. In combination, a new entitlement program,
unlimited secret insurance subsidies, cuts to conservation programs and
high commodity prices will create powerful incentives to plow up fragile
wetlands and grasslands and erase many of the environmental gains made
by agriculture in recent years.
“We applaud the provisions in the bill that create and expand
programs that support healthy diets and organic farmers, as well as
expanding links between local farmers and consumers. We also support
efforts to reform conservation programs to get more conservation bang
for the buck.
“But for the leadership of Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), this
proposal would have been far worse. We look forward to working with
Sen. Stabenow and other members of the Committee to strengthen
conservation and nutrition provisions of the bill and to place
reasonable limits on subsidies for highly-profitable farm businesses.”

###

The mission of the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public
health and the environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization,
founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.

Following
the anti-Monsanto activism launched by nations like France and Hungary,
Poland has announced that it will launch a complete ban on growing
Monsanto’s genetically modified
strain MON810. The announcement, made by Agriculture Minister Marek
Sawicki, sets yet another international standard against Monsanto’s
genetically modified creations. In addition to being linked to a
plethora health ailments, Sawicki says that the pollen originating from
this GM strain may actually be devastating the already dwindling bee population.

“The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland,” Sawicki stated to the press.

Similar opposition to Monsanto occurred on March 9th, when 7 European countries blocked a proposal
by the Danish EU presidency which would permit the cultivation of
genetically modified plants on the entire continent. It was France, who
in February, lead the charge against GMOs by asking the European
Commission to suspend authorization to Monsanto’s genetically
modified corn. What’s more, the country settled a landmark case in favor
of the people over Monsanto, finding the biotech giant guilty of chemical poisoning.

In a ruling given by a court in Lyon (southeast France), grain grower
Paul Francois stated that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on
the Lasso weedkiller product label which resulted in neurological
problems such as memory loss and headaches. The court ordered an expert
opinion to determine the sum of the damages, and to verify the link
between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The result was a guilty
charge, paving the way for further legal action on behalf of injured
farmers.

Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security
system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related
to pesticides. However only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years.

Nations are continually taking a stand against Monsanto, with nations
like Hungary destroying 1000 acres of GM maize and India slamming
Monsanto with ‘biopiracy‘ charges.

If
you thought Monsanto’s lack of testing on their current GMO crops was
bad before, prepare to now be blown away by the latest statement by the
USDA. Despite links to organ damage and mutated insects, the USDA says that it is changing the rules so that genetically modified seed companies like Monsanto will get ‘speedier regulatory reviews’. With the faster reviews, there will be even less time spent on evaluating the potential dangers. Why? Because Monsanto is losing sales with longer approval terms.

The changes are expected to take full effect in March when they’re published in the Federal Register. The USDA’s goal is to cut the approval time for GMO crops in half in order to speedily implement them into the global food supply. The current USDA process takes longer than they would like due to ‘public interest, legal challenges, and the challenges associated with the advent of national organic food standards‘ says USDA deputy administrator Michael Gregoire.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, problems
like public interest (activist groups attempting to bring the dangers of
GMO crops to light), legal challenges (farmers suing Monsanto
over genetic contamination), and national food standards are all
getting in the way of their prime goal — to helpMonsanto unleash their
latest untested GMO creation. In fact, the concern is that Monsanto may be losing cash flow as nations like Brazil speed genetically modified seeds through laughable approval processes.

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean
Association, states it quite plainly. This is a move to help Monsanto
and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits.
After all, who cares about public health?

“It is a concern from a competition standpoint,” Censky said in a telephone interview.

“If you can reduce the approval time, you get sales that much faster,” said Windau

If you can reduce the approval time, as in the time it takes to
determine if these food products are safe, then you can get sales much
faster. Is the USDA working for the United States consumer, or is it
working for Monsanto?

Monsanto,
the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the
dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse
research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified
corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that
Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the
vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of
the largest bee research firms on the planet.

It can be found in public company reports hosted
on mainstream media that Monsanto scooped up the Beeologics firm back
in September 2011. During this time the correlation between Monsanto’s
GM crops and the bee decline was not explored in the mainstream, and in
fact it was hardly touched upon until Polish officials addressed the
serious concern amid the monumental ban. Owning a major organization
that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA
for their mission statement of “restoring bee health and protecting the
future of insect pollination” could be very advantageous for Monsanto.

In fact, Beelogics’ company information states that the primary goal
of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be
a result — at least in part — of Monsanto’s own creations. Their website states:

While its primary goal is to control the Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection
crises, Beeologics’ mission is to become the guardian of bee health
worldwide.

What’s more, Beelogics is recognized by the USDA,
the USDA-ARS, the media, and ‘leading entomologists’ worldwide. The
USDA, of course, has a great relationship with Monsanto. The government
agency has gone to great lengths to ensure that Monsanto’s financial
gains continue to soar, going as far as to give the company special speed approval
for their newest genetically engineered seed varieties. It turns out
that Monsanto was not getting quick enough approval for their crops,
which have been linked to severe organ damage and other significant health concerns.

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean
Association, states it quite plainly. It was a move to help Monsanto and
other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After
all, who cares about public health?

“It is a concern from a competition standpoint,” Censky said in a telephone interview.

It appears that when Monsanto cannot answer for their environmental
devastation, they buy up a company that may potentially be their
‘experts’ in denying any such link between their crops and the bee
decline.